A top Justice Department official told House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa on Wednesday that the department was not stonewalling the congressional investigation into the botched “Fast-and-Furious” gun-walking operation, saying the chairman’s criticisms “seem predicated on significant misunderstandings.”

“We remain committed to working to accommodate the committee’s legitimate oversight needs,” Deputy Attorney General James Cole told Issa in a five-page letter. “Your criticisms of the department, in general…. seem predicated on significant misunderstandings.”

On Tuesday, Issa had threatened to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress if Justice did not release certain documents in response to the committee’s subpoena about the operation.

Issa, a California Republican, accused Justice of trying to “obstruct our investigation and deceive the public” by withholding documents, in particular documents created after Feb. 4, 2011.

“You… criticize the department’s response to the committee’s Oct. 11, 2011 subpoena. This criticism does not recognize our substantial efforts to comply with the extensive requests in the subpoena, or the many other requests for information we have received from the committee,” contended Cole. “We have devoted significant resources to meeting the committee’s many requests for information.”

Cole added that the DOJ intended to provide documents created after Feb. 4, 2011, so long as they did not “implicate other recognized department interests in confidentiality (for example… matters reflecting internal department deliberations).”

The Republican majority on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee took aim at that exception, arguing that it was so broadly worded, so as to encompass a substantial number of documents of interest on the “Fast-and-Furious” operation.

“The assertion that internal discussions about Operation Fast and Furious from after Feb. 4, 2011, should remain secret and off limits to investigators is inconsistent with the Justice Department’s legal obligations and precedent,” Issa spokesperson Frederick Hill told POLITICO. “The Justice Department is under investigation for both its conduct during Operation Fast and Furious as well as its response to whistleblowers and investigators who expressed concern about reckless conduct.”

“If the Justice Department cannot provide assurances that it will meet its legal obligations, the committee has no other option than moving to hold Attorney General Holder in contempt,” said Hill, repeating Tuesday’s threat.

Issa had demanded the release of certain documents by Feb. 9. Cole argued in his Wednesday letter that this was simply not possible.

“The broad scope of the committee’s requests and the volume of material to be collected, processed and reviewed in response make it impossible to meet the deadline, despite our good faith efforts,” Cole wrote.

During a House Judiciary Committee hearing in December, Holder said the Justice Department had disclosed to Congress some records from early 2011 that showed how the agency crafted a Feb. 4, 2011 letter that officials later withdrew as inaccurate. However, Holder seemed to reject House members’ demands for e-mails and other information that was generated after the February letter was sent.

“We have produced a really substantial amount of stuff around the February 4th letter, but…let me just be very clear that with regard to documents that go beyond that, from February the 5th on, materials have not been produced and it is not our intention to produce them following that,” Holder said at the hearing.

“There are emails, materials that we have not and will not produce,” he added, citing the Justice Department’s practice during prior administrations.

Cole said in his letter Wednesday that Issa should not have interpreted Holder’s comments as a flat refusal to turn over “fast-and-furious”-related records created after last February.

“It appears you have misconstrued our position with respect to this issue,” Cole wrote. He said the department was willing to turn over some such records, but that certain categories would be off limits, such as records about efforts to respond to the Congressional probe or media inquiries as well as records disclosing “internal Department deliberations.”